ArticleScientific reports2022
Assessment of brain injury characterization and influence of modeling approaches.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forensic Analysis of Head Traumas: Can Biomechanics Shed Light?-A Case Report.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An MRI-derived head-neck finite element model.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2025Article
- Pre-Clinical Models of Penetrating Brain Injury: Study Protocol for a Scoping Review.NeuroSci · 2025Article
- Cyclosporine A Accelerates Neurorecovery Transcriptional Trajectory in a Swine Model of Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Full-field, frequency-domain comparison of simulated and measured human brain deformation.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2025Article
- American Football On-Field Head Impact Kinematics: Influence of Acceleration Signal Characteristics on Peak Maximal Principal Strain.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, using computational biomechanics models, we investigated influence of the skull-brain interface modeling approach and the material property of cerebrum on the kinetic, kinematic and injury outputs. Live animal head impact tests of different severities were reconstructed in finite element simulations and DAI and ASDH injury results were compared. We used the head/brain models of Total HUman Model for Safety (THUMS) and Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC), which had been validated under several loading conditions. Four modeling approaches of the skull-brain interface in the head/brain models were evaluated. They were the original models from THUMS and GHBMC, the THUMS model with skull-brain interface changed to sliding contact, and the THUMS model with increased shear modulus of cerebrum, respectively. The results have shown that the definition of skull-brain interface would significantly influence the magnitude and distribution of the load transmitted to the brain. With sliding brain-skull interface, the brain had lower maximum principal stress compared to that with strong connected interface, while the maximum principal strain slightly increased. In addition, greater shear modulus resulted in slightly higher the maximum principal stress and significantly lower the maximum principal strain. This study has revealed that using models with different modeling approaches, the same value of injury metric may correspond to different injury severity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.